Skip to main content

Full text of "Solzhenitsyn: The Voice of Freedom"

See other formats

The Voice 
of Freedom 

Two Addresses 

by Aleksandr L Solzhenitsyn, the Rus- 
sian novelist who won the Nobel Prize for 1970 and was 
deported by the Soviet Union in February 1974, On his first 
visit to the United States, Solzhenitsyn made two addresses 
under AFL-CIO sponsorship. This pamphlet is the transla- 
tion of those two speeches, the first in Washington, D. C, on 
June 30. 1975, where he was introduced by AFL-CIO Presi- 
dent George Meany [next page], the second in New York City 
on July 9, 1975, where he was introduced by AFL-CIO Secre- 
tary-Treasurer Lane Kirkland [Page 26]. 


RjDthwest Texas State University 

San Mercos, TexsB 




We Need Echoes of His Voice' 

George Me any 

When we think of the historfc struggles and 
conflicts of this century, we naturally think of famous 
leaders: men who governed nations, commanded arm- 
ies and inspired movements in the defense of liberty, 
or in the service of ideologies which have obliterated 

Yet, today, in this grave hour in human history, 
when the forces arrayed against the free spirit of man 
are more powerful, more brutal and more lethal than 
ever before, the single figure who has raised highest 
the flame of liberty heads no state, commands no 
army, and leads no movement that our eyes can see. 

But there is a movement — a hidden movement of 
human beings who have no offices and have no head- 
quarters, who are not represented in the great halls 
where nations meet, who every day risk or suffer 
more for the right to speak, to think and to be them- 
selves than any of us here are likely to risk in our 
entire lifetime. 

Where are the members of this invisible movement? 
As we prepare tonight to honor the presence of one of 
them, among us, let us give some thought to the rest: 
to the millions who are trapped in Soviet slave labor 
camps; to the countless thousands drugged and strait- 
jacketed in so-called "insane asylums;" to the multi- 

tudes of voiceless workers who slave in the factories 
of the commissars; to all those who strain for bits and 
pieces of truth through the jammed frequencies of 
forbidden broadcasts, and who record and pass out- 
lawed thoughts from hand-to-hand in the shadows of 

But if they remain invisible to us, we can hear them 
now, for there has come forth from under the rubble 
of oppression a voice that demands to be heard, a 
voice that will not be denied. 

We heed this voice not because it speaks for the 
left or the right or for any faction, but because it huris 
truth and courage into the teeth of total power when 
it would be so much easier and more comfortable to 
submit and to embrace the lies by which that power 

What is the strength of this voice? How has it 
broken through to us when others have been stilled? 
Its strength is art. 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is not a crusader. He is not 
a politician. He is not a general. He is an artist. 

Solzhenitsyn's art illuminates the truth. It is, in a 
sense, subversive: Subversive of hypocrisy, subversive 
of delusion, subversive of the Big Lie. 

No man in modern times and very few in all of 


history have demonstrated as drastically as Aleksandr 
Solzhenitsyn the power of the pen coupled with cour- 
age to free men's minds. 

We need that power today desperately. We need it 
to teach the new and the forgetful generations in our 
midst what it means not to be free. Freedom is not an 
abstraction; neither is the absence of freedom. Sol- 
zhenitsyn has helped us to see that, thanks to his art 
and his courage. 

His art is a unique gift. It cannot be transmitted to 
another. But let us pray that his courage is contagious- 

We need echoes of his voice. We need to hear the 
echoes in the White House. We need to hear the 
echoes in the Congress and in the State Department 
and in the universities and in the media, and if you 
please, Mr. UN Ambassador Patrick Moynihan, in 
the United Nations. 

The American trade union movement, from its be- 
ginnings to the present, has been dedicated to the firm, 
unyielding belief in freedom. Freedom for all man- 
kind, as well as for ourselves. It is in that spirit that we 
are honored to present Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. 

'America: You Must Think About the World' 

Most of those present here today are workers. 
Creative workers. And 1 myself, having spent many 
years of my life as a stone cutter, as a foimdryman. 
as a manual worker, in the name of all who have 
shared this forced labor with me, like the two Gulag 
prisoners whom you just saw, and on behalf of those 
who are doing forced labor in our country. T can start 
my speech today Avith the greeting: ''Brothers!" 
"Brothers in Labor." 

And not to forget, also, the niany honored guests 
present here tonight, let me add: "Ladies and Gentle- 

"Workers of the world unite!" Who of us has not 
heard this slogan, which has been sounding through 
the world for 125 years? Today you can find it in any 
Soviet pamphlet as well as in every issue of Pravda, 
But never have the leaders of the Communist revolu- 
tion in the Soviet Union made apphcation of these 
words sincerely and in their full meaning. When many 
lies have accumulated over the decades, we forget the 
radical and basic lie which is not on the leaves of the 
tree, but at its very roots. 

Now, it's almost impossible to remember or to be- 
lieve . . . For instance, 1 recently published- — -had 
reprinted — a pamphlet from the year 1918. This was 
a precise record of a meeting of all representatives of 

the Petrograd factories, that being the city known in 
our country as the ^"cradle of the Revolution." 

I repeat, this was March 1918 — only four months 
after the October Revolution — and ail the representa- 
tives of the Petrograd factories were cursing the Com- 
munists, who had deceived them in all of their prom- 
ises. What is more, not only had Ihcy abandoned 
Petrograd to cold and hunger, themselves having fled 
from Petrograd to Moscow, but had given orders to 
machinegun the crowds of workers in the courtyards 
of the factories who were demanding the election of 
independent factory committees. 

Let me remind you, this was March 191R. Scarcely 
anyone now can recall the crushing of the Petrograd 
strikes in 1921, or the shooting of workers in Kolpino 
in the same year. 

Among the leadership, the Central Committee of 
the Communist Party, at the beginning of the Revolu- 
tion, all were emigre intellectuals who had returned, 
after the uprisings had already broken out in Russia, 
in order to carry through the Communist Revolution. 
One of them was a genuine worker, a hiehlv skilled 
lathe operator until the last day of his life. This was 
Alexander Shhapnikov. Who knows that name today? 
Precisely because he expressed the true interests of the 
workers within the Communist leadership. In ihe 

years before the Revolution it was Shliapnikov who 
ran the whole Communist Party in Russia— not Lenin, 
who was an emigre. In 1921, he headed the Workers' 
Opposition which was charging the Communist lead- 
ership with betraying the workers' interests, with 
crushing and oppressing the proletariat and trans- 
forming itself into a bureaucracy. 

Shliapnikov disappeared from sight. He was ar- 
rested somewhat later and since he firmly stood his 
ground lie was shot in prison and his name is perhaps 
unknown to most people here today. But I remind 
you: before the Revolution the head of the Com.- 
munisi Party of Russia Vv'as Shliapnikov — not Lenin. 

Since that time, the wcirking class has never been 
able to stand up for its rights, and in distinction from 
all the western countries our working class only re- 
ceives what they hand out to it. It only gets handouts. 
It cannot defend iEs simplest, everyday interests, and 
the least strike for pay or for better living conditions 
is viewed as counter-revolutionary. Thanks to the 
closed nature of the Soviet system, you have probably 
never heard of the textile strikes in 1930 in Ivanovo, 
or of the 1961 worker unrest in Murom and Alexan- 
drovo, or of the major workers' uprising in Novo- 
cherkassk in 1962 — this in the time of Khrushchev, 
after the thaw. 

This story will shortly be published in detail in your 
country in Gulag Archipelago, volume 3. It is a story 
of how workers went in a peaceful demonstration to 

the Party City Committee, carrying portraits of Lenin, 
to request a change in economic conditions. They 
fired at them with machine guns and dispersed the 
crowds with tanks, No family dared even to collect 
iLs wounded and dead, but all were taken away in 
secret bv the authorities. 

Precisely to those present here I don't have to ex- 
plain that in our country, since the Revolution, there's 
never been such a thing as a free trade union. 

The leaders of the British trade unions are free to 
play the unworthy game of visiting Russia's so-called 
trddc unions and receiving visits in return. But the 
AFL-CIO has never given in to these illusions. 

The American workers' movement has never al- 
lowed itself to be blinded and to mistake slavery for 
freedom. And T, today, on behalf of all of our op- 
pressed people, thank you for this! 

When liberal thinkers and wise men of the West, 
who had forgotten the meaning of the word "liberty," 
were swearing that in the Soviet Union there were no 
concentration camps at all, the American Federation 
of Labor, published in 1947. a map of our concentra- 
tion camps, and on behalf of all of the prisoners of 
those times, I want to thank the American workers' 
movement for this. 

But just as we feel ourselves your allies here, there 
also exists another alliance — at first glance a strange 
one, a surprising one— but if you think about it, in 
fact, one which is well-grounded and easy to under- 


stand: this is the alliance between our Communist 
leaders and your capitalists. 

This alliance is not new. The very famous Armand 
Hammer, who is flourishing here today, laid the basis 
for this when he made the first exploratory trip into 
Russia, still in Lenin's time, in the very first years of 
the Revolution. He was extremely successful in this 
intelligence mission and since that time for all these 
50 years, we observe continuous and steady support 
by the businessmen of the West of the Soviet Commu- 
nist leaders. 

Their clumsy and awkward economy, which could 
never overcome its own difTiculties by itself, is contin- 
ually getting material and technological assistance. 
The major construction projects in the initial five- 
year plan were built exclusively with American tech- 
nology and materials. Even Stalin recognized that two- 
thirds of what was needed Vv-as obtained from the 
West. And if today the Soviet Union has powerful 
military and police forces — in a country which is by 
contemporary standards poor- — they arc used to crush 
our movement for freedom in the Soviet Union — and 
we have western capital to thank for this also. 

Let me remind you of a recent incident which some 
of you may have seen in the newspapers, although 
others might have missed it: Certain of your business- 
men, on their own initiative, established an exhibition 
of criminological technolosv in Moscow. This was the 

most recent and elaborate technology, which here, in 
your country, is used to catch criminals, to bug them, 
to spy on them, to photograph them, to tail them, to 
identify criminals, This was taken to Moscow to an 
exhibition in order that the Soviet KGB agents could 
study it, as if not understanding what sort of criminals, 
who would be hunted by the KGB, 

The Soviet government was extremely interested in 
this technology, and decided to purchase it. And your 
businessmen were quite willing to sell it. Only when a 
few sober voices here raised an uproar against it was 
this deal blocked. Only for this reason it didn't take 
place. But you have to realize how clever the KGB 
is. This technology didn't have to stay twx^ or three 
weeks in a Soviet building under Soviet guard. Two 
or three nights were enough for the KGB there to look 
through it and copy it. And if today, persons are being 
hunted down by the best and most advanced tech- 
nology, for this, I can also thank your western capi- 

This is something which is almost incomprehensible 
to the human mind; that burning greed for profit 
which goes beyond all reason, all self-control, all 
conscience, only to get money, 

I must say that Lenin forelold this whole process. 
Lenin, who spent most of his life in the West and not 
in Russia, who knew the West much better than Rus- 
sia, always wrote and said that the western capitalists 
would do anything to strengthen the economv of ihe 

USSR. They will compete with each other to sell us 
goods cheaper and sell them quicker, so that the 
Soviets wil! buy from one rather than from the other. 
He said: They will bring it themselves without think- 
ing about their future. And, in a difficult moment, at a 
party meeting in iVIoscow. he said: ''Comrades, don't 
panic, when things go very hard for us, we wall give 
a rope to the bourgeoisie, and the bourgeoisie will 
hang itself." 

Then, Karl Radek. whom you may have heard of, 
who was a very resourceful wit, said: "Vladimir 
Ilyich, but where are we going to get enough rope to 
hang the whole bourgeoisie?" 

Lenin eftortlessly replied, 'They'll supply us with 

Through the decades of the 1920s, the 1930s, the 
1940s, the 1950s, the whole Soviet press wToter West- 
ern capitalism, your end is near. 

But it was as if the capitalists had not heard, coukl 
not understand, could not believe this. 

Nikita Khrushchev came here and said, "We will 
bury you!'' They didn't believe that, either. They took 
it as a joke. 

Now, of course, they have become more clever in 
our country. Now they don't say "we are going to 
bury you" anymore, now they say "detente." 

Nothing has changed in Communist ideology. The 
goals are the same as they were, but instead of the 


artless Khrushchev, who coiildn^t hold his tongue, 
now they say "'detente.'' 

In order to understand this, I will take the liberty 
of making a short historic survey — the history of such 
relations, which in different periods have been called 
*'trade/' "stabilization of the situation,'* "recognition 
of realities/' and now "detente." These relations now 
are at least 40 years old. 

Let me remind you with what sort of system they 

The system was installed by armed uprising. 

It dispersed the Constituent Assembly. 

It capitulated to Germany — ^the common enemy. 

It introduced execution without trial. 

It crushed workers' strikes. 

It plundered the villagers to such an unbelievable 
extent that the peasants revolted, and when this hap- 
pened it crushed the peasants in the bloodiest possible 

It shattered the Church. 

It reduced 20 provinces of our country to a condi- 
tion of famine. 

This was in 1921, the famous Volga famine, A very 
typical Communist technique: To seize power without 
thinking of the fact that the productive forces will 
collapse, that the fields will not be sown, the factories 
will stop, that the country will decline into poverty 
and famine — but when poverty and hunger come, then 
they request the humanitarian world to help them. 

We see this in North Vietnam today, perhaps Portugal 
is approaching this also. And the same thing happened 
in Russia in 1921. When the three-year civil war, 
started by the Communists — -and "civil war" was a 
slogan of the Communists, civil war was Lenin s pur- 
pose; read Lenin, this was his aim and his slogan — 
when they had ruined Russia by this civil war, then 
they asked Airtcrica, "America, feed our hungry.'' 
And indeed, generous and magnanimous America did 
feed our hungry. 

The so-called American Rehef Administration was 
set up, headed by your future President Hoover, and 
indeed many millions of Russian lives were saved by 
this organization of yours. 

But what sort of gratitude did you receive for this? 
In the USSR not only did they try to erase this whole 
event from the popular memory — it's almost impos- 
sible today in the Soviet press to find any reference 
to the American Relief Administration- — ^but Ihey 
even denounce it as a clever spy organization, a clever 
scheme of American imperialism to set up a spy net- 
work in Russia. 1 repeat, it was a system that intro- 
duced concentration camps for the first time in the 
history of the world. 

A system that^ in the 20th Century, was the first to 

introduce the use of hostages, that is to say, not to 
seize the person whom they were seeking, but rather 
a member of his family or someone at random, and 

shoot that person. 

This system of hostages and persecution of the 
family exists to this day. It is still the most powerful 
weapon of persecution, because the bravest person, 
who is not afraid for himself, still shivers at the threat 
to his family. 

It is a system which was the first- — long before 
Hitler — to employ false registration, that is, to say: 
"Such and such people have to come in to register," 
People would comply and then they were taken away 
to be annihilated. 

We didn't have gas chambers in those days. Wc 
used barges. A hundred or a thousand persons were 
put into a barge and then it was sunk. 

It was a system which deceived the workers in all 
of its decrees- — the decree on land, the decree on 
peace, the decree on factories, the decree on freedom 
of the press. 

It was a system which exterminated all additional 
parties, and let me make it clear to you that it not 
only disbanded the party itself, but destroyed its mem- 
bers. All members of every other party were extermi- 
nated. It was a system which carried out genocide of 
the peasantry; 15 million peasants were sent off to 

It was a system which introduced serfdom, the so- 
called "passport system." 

It was a system which, in time of peace, artificially 
created a famine, causing 6 million persons to die in 


the Ukraine in 1932 and 1933. They died on the very 
edge of Europe. And Europe didn't even notice it. 
The world didn't even notice it — 6 million persons! 

I could keep on enumerating these endlessly, but I 
have to stop because T have come to the year 1933 
when, with all T have enumerated behind us, your 
President Roosevelt and your Congress recognized 
this system as one worthy of diplomatic recognition, 
of friendship and of assistance. 

Let me remind you that the great Washington did 
not agree to recognize the French Convention because 
of hs savagery. Let me remind you that in 1933, 
voices were raised in your country objecdng to rec- 
ognition of the Soviet Union. However, the recogni- 
tion took place and this was the beginning of friend- 
ship and ultimately of a military alhance. 

Let us remember that in 1904, the American press 
was delighted at the Japanese victories and everyone 
wanted Russia's defeat because it was a conservative 
country. I want to remind you that in 1914 reproaches 
were directed at France and England for having en- 
tered into an alhance with such a conservative coun- 
try as Russia. 

The scope and the direcfion of my speech today 

do not peiinit me to say more about pre-revolutionary 
Russia. I will just say that informadon about pre- 
revolutionary Russia was obtained by the West from 
persons who were either not sufficiently competent or 

not sulTiciently conscientioLis. I will just cite for the 
sirike of comparison a number of figures which you 
can read for yourself in Gulag Archipelago, volume 
1, which has been pubhshed in the United States, and 
perhaps many of you may have read iL These are the 

According to calculations by specialists, based on 
the most precise objective statistics, in pre-revolution- 
ary Russia, during the SO years before the revolution 
— years of the revolutionary movement when there 
were attempts on the Tsar'^ life, assassination of a 
Tsar, revolution — during these years about 17 persons 
a year were executed. The famous Spanish Inquisition, 
during the decades when it w^as at the height of its 
persecution, destroyed perhaps 10 persons a month. 
In t]te Archipelago — I cite a book which was pub- 
lished by the Cheka in 1920. proudly reporting on its 
revolutionary work in 1918 and 1919 and apologizing 
tliat its data v/erc not quite complete — in 1918 and 
1919 the Cheka executed, whhout trial, more than a 
thousand persons a month! This was written by the 
Cheka itself, before it understood how this would 
look to history. 

At the height of Stalin's terror in 1937-38, if we 
divide the number of persons executed by the number 
of months, we get more than 40,000 persons shot per 
month! Here are the figures: 17 a year, 10 a month, 
more than 1 ,000 a month, more than 40,000 a month! 
Thus, that whicli had made it difficult foi' the demo- 

cratic West to form an alliance with pre-revolutionary 
Russia had, by 194], grown to such an extent and 
still did not prevent the entire united democracy of 
the world — England, France, the United States, Can- 
ada, Aiistraha and small countries — from entering 
into a military alliance with the Soviet Union, How is 
this to be explained? How can we understand it? 
Here we can offer a few explanations. The first, I 
think, is that the entire united democracy of the world 
was too weak to fight against Hitler's Germany alone. 
If this is the case, then it is a terrible sign. It is a 
terrible portent for the present day. If all these coun- 
tries together could not defeat Hitler's little Germany, 
what are they going to do today, when more than 
half the globe is flooded with totahtarianism? I don't 
want to accept this explanation. 

The second explanation is perhaps that there was 
simply an attack of panic^of fear — -among the states- 
men of the day. They simply didn't have sumdent 
confidence in themselves, they simply had no strength 
of spirit, and in this confused state decided to enter 
into an alliance with Soviet totalitarianism. This is 
also not flattering to the West. 

Finally, the third explanation is that it was a delib- 
erate device. Democracy did not want to defend itself. 
For defense it wanted to use another totalitarian sys- 
tem, the Soviet totalitarian system. 

Tm not talking now about the moral evaluation of 
this, Tm going to talk about that later. But in terms 


of simple calculation, how shortsighted, what profound 

We have a Russian proverb: "Do not call a wolf to 
help you against the dogs." If dogs are attacking and 
tearing at you, fight against the dogs, but do not call 
a wolf for help. Because when the wolves come, they 
will destroy the dogs, but they will also tear you apart. 

World domocracy could have defeated one totali- 
tarian regime after another, the German, then the 
Soviet. Instead, it strengthened Soviet totalitarianism, 
helped bring into existence a third totalitarianism, 
that of China, and all this finally precipitated the pres- 
ent world situation. 

Rooseveh, in Teheran, during one of his last toasts, 
said the following: "I do not doubt that the three of 
us'' — meaning Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin — "lead 
our peoples in accordance with their desires, in accor- 
dance with their aims." How are we to explain this? 
Let the historians worry about that. At the time, we 
listened and were astonished. We thought, '\vhen we 
reach Europe, we will meet the Americans, and we 
will tell them," I was among the troops that were 
marching towards the Elbe. A little bit more and I 
would have reached the Elbe and would have shaken 
the hands of your American soldiers. But just before 
that happened, 1 was taken off to prison and my meet- 
ing did not take place. 

But now, after all this great delay, the same hand 

zen understood that this was a sly device wliich made 
it possible for North Vietnam to take over South Viet- 
nam when it so chose. And suddenly, this was re- 
warded by the Nobel Prize for Peace — a tragic and 
ironic prize. 

A very dangerous state of mind can arise as a result 
of this 30 years of retreat: give in as quickly as pos- 
sible, give up as quickly as possible, peace and quiet 
at any cost. 

This is what mony western papers wrote: "Let's 
hurry up an end the bloodshed in Vietnam and have 
national unity there.'' But at the Berlin Wall no one 
talked of national unity. One of your leading news- 
papers, after liie end of Vietnam, had a full headline: 
"The Blessed Silence." 1 would not wish that kind of 
''blessed silence" on my worst enemy. I would not 
wish that kind of national unity on my worst enemy. 
I spent 11 years in the Archipelago, and for half 
of my lifetime 1 have studied this question. Looking at 
this terrible tragedy in Vietnam from a distance, I 
can tell you, a million persons will be simply extermi- 
nated, while 4 to 5 million (in accordance with the 
scale of Vietnam) will find themselves in concentra- 
tion camps and will be rebuilding Vietnam. And what 
is happening in Cambodia you already know. It is 
genocide. It is full and complete destruction but in a 
new form. Once again their technology is tiot up to 
building gas chambers. So, in a few hours, the entire 


capital city — the guilty capital city — is emptied out: 
old people, women, children arc driven out without 
belongings, without food. "Go and diet" 

This is very dangerous for one's view of the world 
when this feeling comes on: "Go ahead, give it up." 
We already hear voices in your country and in the 
West — ''Give up Korea and we will live quietly. Give 
up Portugal, of course; give up Japan, give up Israel, 
give up Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, 
give up 10 more African countries. Just let us live in 
peace and quiet. Just let us drive our big cars on our 
splendid highways; just let us play tennis and golf, in 
peace and quiet; just let us mix our cocktails in peace 
and quiet as we are accustomed to doing; just let us 
see the beautiful toothy smile with a glass in hand on 
every advertisement page of our magazines." 

But look how things have turned out: Now in the 
West this has all turned into an accusation against the 
United States. Now, in the West, we hear very many 
voices saying, "It's your fault, America." And, here, 
I must decisively defend the United States against' 
these accusations. 

I have to say that the United States, of all the 
countries of the West, is the least guilty in all this 
and has done the most in order to prevent it. The 
United States has helped Europe to win the First and 
the Second World Wars. It twice raised Europe from 
post-war destruction — twice — ^for 10, 20, 30 years 

Solzhenitsyn and his wife tour Washington, D.C., with Mr. 
and Mrs. Mstislav Rostropovlch, the famed Russian cellist 
who provided Solzhenitsyn with a place to live and write m 
Russia after the USSR Writers Union expelled him in 1969. 

it has stood as a shield protecting Europe while 
European countries were counting their nickels, to 
avoid paying for their armies (better yet lo have none 
at all) to avoid paying for armaments, thinking about 
how to leave NATO, knowing that in any case Amer- 
ica win protect them anyway. These countries started 
it all, despite their thousands of years of civilization 
and culture, even though they are closer and should 
have known better, 

I came to your continent — for two months I have 
been travelling in its wide open spaces and 1 agree: 
here you do not feel the nearness of it all, the im- 
mediacy of it all. And here it is possible to miscalcu- 
late. Here you must make a spiritual effort to under- 
stand the acuteness of the world situation. The United 
States of America has long shown itself to be the 
most magnanimous, the most generous country in the 
world. Wherever there is a flood, an earthquake, a 
fire, a natural disaster, disease, who is the first to 
help? The United States. Who helps the most and 
unselfishly? The United States. 

And what do we hear in reply? Reproaches, curses, 
"Yankee Go Home," American cultural centers are 
burned, and the representatives of the Third World 
jump on tables to vote against the United States. 

But this does not take the load off America's 
shoulders. The course of history — whether you like it 
or not — ^has made you the leaders of the world. Your 
country can no longer think provlncially. Your politi- 


cal leaders can no longer think only of their own 
states, of their parties, of petty arrangements which 
may or may not lead to promotion. You must think 
about the whole world, and when the new political 
crisis in the world will arise (T think we have ju?it 
come to the end of a very acute crisis and the -next 
one will come any moment) the main decisions will 
fall anyway on the shoulders of the United States of 

And while already here, 1 have heard some ex- 
planations of the situation. Let me quote some of 
them: "It is impossible to protect those who do not 
have the will to defend themselves." T agree with that, 
but this was said about South Vietnam. In one-half 
of today's Europe and in three-quarters of today's 
world the will to defend oneself is even less than it 
was in South Vietnam. 

We are told; "We cannot defend those who are 
unable to defend themselves with their own human 
resources." But against the ovcrwhilming powers of 
totalitarianism, when all of this power is thrown 
against a country — no country can defend itself with 
its own resources. For instance, Japan doesn't have a 
standing army. 

Wc are told, "We should not protect those who do 
not have full democracy." This is the most remarkable 
argument of the lot. This is the Leitmotif T hear in 
your newspapers and in the speeches of some of your 
political leaders. Who in the world, ever, on the front 

line of defense against totalitarianism has been able 
to sustain full democracy? You, the united democra- 
cies of the world, were not able to sustain it, America, 
England, France, Canada, Australia together did not 
sustain jt. At the firsL threat of Hitlerism, you stretched 
out your hands to Stalin. You call that sustaining 

And there is more of the same (there were many 
of these speeches in a row) : "If the Soviet Union is 
going to use detente for its own ends, then we. . . ." 
But what will happen then? The Soviet Union has 
used detente in its own interests, is using it now and 
will continue to use it in its own interests! For ex- 
ample. China and the Soviet Union, both actively 
participating in detente, have quietly grabbed three 
countries of Indochina. True, perhaps as a consola- 
tion. China wrlE send you a ping-pong team. And just 
as the Soviet Union once sent you the pilots who once 
crossed the North Pole, in a few days you're Rying 
into space together. 

A typical diversion. I remember very well the year, 
this was June of 1937, when Chkalov, Baidukov and 
Beliakov heroically flew over the North Pole and 
landed in the state of Washington. This was the very 
year when Stalin was executing more than 40,000 
persons a month. And Stahn knew what he was doing. 
He sent those pilots and aroused in you a naive 
delight — the friendship of two countries across the 
North Pole. The pilots were heroic, nobody will say 

anything against them. But this was a show — a show 
to divert you from the real events of 1937. And what 
is the occasion now? Is it an anniversary — 38 years? 
Is 38 years some kind of an anniversary? No. it is 
simply necessary to cover up Vietnam. And, once 
again, those pilots were sent here. The Chkalov Memo- 
rial was unveiled in the State of Washington. Chkalov 
was a hero and is worthy of a memorial. But, to 
present the true picture, behind the memorial there 
should have been a wall and on it there should have 
been a bas relief showing the executions, showing the 
skulls and bones. 

We are also told (I apologize for so many quotes, 
but there are many more in your press and radio): 
''We cannot ignore the fact that North Vietnam and 
the Khmer Rouge have violated the agreement, but 
we're ready to look into the future/' What does that 
mean? It means: let them exterminate people. But if 
these murderers, who live by violence, these execu- 
tioners, offer us detente we will be happy to go along 
with them. As Willy Brandt once said: "I would even 
be willins to have detente with Stalin." At a time when 
Stalin was executing 40,000 a month he would have 
been willing to have detente with Stalin? 

Look into the future. This is how they looked into 
the future in 1933 and 1941, but it was a short- 
sighted look into the future. This is how they looked 
into the future two years ago when a senseless, in- 
comprehensible, non-guaranteed truce in Vietnam was 


arranged, and it was a shortsighted view. There was 
such a hurry to make this truce that they forgot to 
hberate your own Americans from captivity. They 
were in such a hurry to sign this document that some 
1,300 Americans, "Well, they have vanished; we can 
get by without them/' How is that done? How can 
this be? Part of (hem, indeed, can be missing in action, 
but the leaders of North Vietnam themselves have 
admitted that some of them are still being kept in 
prison. And do they give you back your countrymen? 
No, they arc not giving them back, and they are 
always raising new conditions. At first they said, 
"Remove Thieu from power," Now. they say, "Have 
the United States restore Vietnam, otherwise it's very 
difficult for us to find these people." 

If the government of North Vietnam has difficulty 
explaining to you what happened with your brothers, 
with your American POWs who have not yet returned, 
I, on the basis of my experience in the Archipelago, 
can explain this quite clearly. There is a law in the 
Archipelago that those who have been treated the 
most harshly and who have withstood the most brave- 
ly, the most honest, the most courageous, the most 
unbending, never again come out into the world. They 
are never again shown to the world because they will 
tell such tales as the human mind cannot accept. A 
part of your returned POWs told you that they were 
tortured. This means that those who have remained 
were tortured even more, but did not yield an inch. 


These are your best people. These are your first 
heroes, who, in a solitary comb^it. have stood the 
test. And today, unfortunately, they cannot lake cour- 
age from our applause. They can't hear it from their 
solitary cells where they may either die or sit 30 years, 
like Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who 
was seized in 1945 in the Soviet Union. He has been 
imprisoned for 30 years and they will not yield him up. 

And you have some hj^sterical public figure who 
said: 'T will go to North Vietnam. I will stand on my 
knees and beg them to release our prisoners of war." 
This isn't a political act — this is masochism. 

To understand properly what detente has meant all 
these 40 years — friendships, stabilization of the situa- 
tion, trade, etc. I would have to tell you something, 
which you have never seen or heard, of how it looked 
from the other side. Let me tell you how it looked. 
Mere acquaintance with an American, and God for- 
bid that you should sit with him in a cafe or restauram, 
meant a 10-year term for suspicion of espionage. 

In the iirst volume of Archipelago T tell of an event 
which was not told me by some arrested person, but 
by all of the members of the Supreme Court of the 
USSR during those short days when 1 was in the 
limelight under Khrushchev. One Soviet citizen was 
in the United States and on his return said that in 
the United States they have wonderful autoniobile 
roads. The KGB arrested him and demanded a term 
of 10 years. But the judge said: "1 don't obiect, but 

there is not enough evidence. ConldiVl you find some- 
tliing else aguinsl him'.'"' So the judge was exiied to 
Siikhahn because he dared to aigue and they gave 
the other man 10 years. Can you imagine what a He 
he told? And what sort of praise this was of American 
imperialism — in America there arc good roads? Ten 

In 1945-46 through our prison cells passed a lot 
of persons — and these were noL ones who were coop- 
erating with Hitler, although there were some of those, 
too. These were not guilty of anything, but rather 
persons who had just been In ilie West and had been 
liberated from German prison camps by the Ameri- 
cans. This was considered a criminal act: liberated 
by the Americans. That means he has seen the good 
hfe. If he comes back he will talk about it. The most 
terrible thing is not what he did but what he would 
talk about. And all such pL-rsons got 10-year terms. 

During Nixon's last visit to Moscow your American 
correspondents were reporting in the western way from 
the streets of Moscow. I am going down a Russian 
street with a microphone and asking the ordinary 
Soviet citii^en: "Tell me please, what do you think 
about the meeting between Nixon and Bre7.hnev?" 
And. amazingly, every last person answered: "Won- 
derfulr Tm delighted. Km absolutely overjoyed!" 

What does this mean? If Tm going down a street 
in Moscow and some American conies up to me with 
a microphone and asks me something, then I know 

that on the other side of him is a member of the state 
security, also with a microphone who is recording 
everything 1 say. You think that I'm going to say 
something that is going to put me in prison imme- 
diately? Of course I say; ''It's wonderful: I'm over- 

But what is the value of such correspondents if they 
simply n-ansfer western techniques over there without 
thinking things through? 

You helped us for many years with Lend Lease, 
but we've now done everything to forget this, to erase 
it from our minds, not to remember it if at all pos- 
sible. And now, before I came into this hall, T de- 
layed my visit to Washington a little in order to first 
take a look at some ordinary parts of America, going 
to various states and simply talking with people. I 
was told, and I learned this for the first time, that in 
every state during the war years there were Soviet- 
American friendship societies which collected assis- 
tance for Soviet people — warm clothes, canned food, 
gifts and sent them lo the Soviet Union. But we not 
only never saw these: we not only never received 
them fthey were distributed somcw^here among the 
privileged circles) no one ever even told us that this 
was being done. T only learned about it for the first 
time here, this month, in the United States, 

Everything poisonous which could be said about 
the United Slates was said in Stalin's days. And all 
of this is a heavy sediment which can be stirred up 


A JiT 

: i 

anytime. Any day the newspapers can come oi]l with 
the headlines: "Bloodthirsty American imperialism 
wants to seize control of the world/' and this poison 
will rise up from the sediment and many people in 
our country will believe this, and will be poisoned 
by it, and will consider you as aggressors. This is 
how detente been managed on our side. 

The Soviet system is so closed that it is almost 
impossible for you to understand from here. Your 
theoreticians and scholars write works trying to under- 
stand and explain how things occur thereT Here are 
some naive explanations which are simply funny to 
Soviet citizens. Some say that the Soviet leaders have 
now given up their inhumane ideology. Not at all. 
They haven't given it up one bit. 

Some say that in the Kreinlin there are some on 
the left, some on the right. And they are fighting with 
each other, and we've got to behave in such a way as 
not to interfere with those on the !cft side. This is 
all fantasy: left . . . right. There is some sort of a 
struggle for power, but they all agree on the essentials. 

There also exists the following theory, that now, 
thanks to the growth of technology, there is a tech- 
nocracy in the Soviet Union, a growing number of 
engineers and the engineers arc now running the econ- 
omy and will soon determine the fate of the country, 
rather than the party. I will tell you. though, that 
the engineers determine the fate of the ccononty just 
as much as our generals determine the fate of the 

Army. That means zero. Everything is done the way 
the party demands. That's our system. Judge it for 

It's cf system where for 40 years there haven't been 
genuine elections but simply a comedy, a farce. Thus 
a system which has no legislative organs. It's a sys- 
tem without an independent press; a system without 
an TTidcpciident judiciaiy; where the people have no 
influence either on externa] or internal policy; where 
any thought which is diQ"erenl from what the state 
thinks is crushed. 

And let me tell you that electronic bugging in our 
country is such a simple thing that ifs a matter of 
everyday life. You had an instance in the United 
States wliere a. bugging caused an uproar which lasted 
for a year and a half. For us it's an everyday matter. 
Almost every apartment, every institution has got its 
bug and it doesn't surprise us in the least — wc are 
used to it. 

It's a system where unmasked butchers of millions 
like Molotov and others smaller than him have never 
been tried in the courts but retire on tremendous 
pensions in the greatest comfort. It's a system where 
the show still goes on today and to which every 
foreigner is introduced surrounded by a couple of 
planted agents working according to a set scenario. 
It's a system where the very constitution has never 
been carried out for one sinde dav; where all the 

decisions mature in secrecy, high up En a small irre- 
sponsible group and then are released on us and on 
you like a bolt of lightning. 

And what are the signatures of such persons worth? 
How could one rely on their signatures to documents 
of detente? You yourselves might ask your specialists 
now and they'll tell you that precisely in recent years 
the Soviet Union has succeeded in creating wonderful 
chemical weapons, missiles, which are even better than 
those used by the United States. 

So what are we to conclude from that? Ts detente 
needed or not? Not only is it needed, it's as necessary 
as air. It's the only way of saving the earth — ^insteud 
of a world war to have detente, but a true detente, 
and if it has already been ruined by the bad word 
which we use for it — -"detente" — then we should find 
another word for it. 

T would say that there arc very few, only three, 
main characteristics of such a true detente. 

In the first place, there would be disarmament — 
not only disarmament from the use of war but also 
from the use of violence. We must stop using not only 
the sort of arms which are used to destroy one's 
neighbors, but the sort of arms which are used to 
oppress one's fellow countrymen. It is not detente if 
we here with you today can spend our time agreeably 
while over there people are groaning and dying and 
in psychiatric hospitals. Doctors are making their 
evening rounds, for the third time injecting people 


with drugs which destroy their brain cells. 

The second sign of detente, I would say, is the 
followmg: that it be not one based on smiles, not on 
verbal concessions, but it has to be based on a firm 
foundation. You know the words from the Bible: 
"Build not on sand, but on rock." There has to be 
a guarantee that this will not be broken overnight 
and for this the other side — the other party to the 
agreement — must have its acts subject to public opin- 
ion, to the press, and to a freely elected parliament. 
And until such control exists there is absolutely no 

The third simple condition — what sort of detente is 
it when they employ the sort of inhumane propaganda 
which is proudly called in the Soviet Union "ideologi- 
cal warfare." Let us not have that. If we're going to 
be friends, let's be friends, if we're going to have de- 
tente, then let's have detente, and an end to ideologi- 
cal warfare. 

The Soviet Union and the Communist countries can 
conduct negotiations. They know how to do this. For 
a long time they don't make any concessions and then 
they give in a little bit. Then everyone says triumph- 
antly, "Look, they've made a concession; it's time to 
sign." The European negotiators of the 35 coimtrics 
for two years now have painfully been negotiating and 
their nerves were stretched to the breaking point and 
they finally gave in. A few women from the Commu- 


nist countries can now marry foreigners. And a few 
newspapermen are now going to be permitted to travel 
a little more than before. They give 1/1. 000th of 
what natural law should provide. Matters which peo- 
ple should be able to do even before such negotia- 
tions are undertaken. And already there is joy. And 
here in the West we hear many voices, saying: "Look, 
they're making concessions; it's time to sign." 

During these two years of negotiations, in all the 
countries of eastern Europe, the pressure has in- 
creased, the oppression intensified, even in Yugoslavia 
and Romania, leaving aside the other countries. And 
it is precisely now that the Austrian chancellor says, 
''We've got to sign this agreement as rapidly as 

What sort of an agreement would this be? The 
proposed agreement is the funeral of eastern Europe. 
It means that western Europe would finally, once and 
for all, sign away eastern Europe, stating that it is 
perfectly willing to see eastern Europe be crushed 
and overwhelmed once and for all, but please don't 
bother us. And the Austrian chancellor thinks that 
if all these countries are pushed into a mass grave, 
Austria at the very edge of this grave will survive 
and not fall into it also. 

And we, from our lives there, have concluded that 
violence can only be withstood by firmness. 

You have to understand the nature of commu- 
nism. The very ideology of communism, all of Lenin's 

teachingSj are that anyone is considered to be a fool 
who doesn't take what's lying in front of him. If you 
can take it, take it. If you can attack, attack. But if 
there's a wall, then go back. And the Communist 
leaders respect only firmness and have contempt and 
laugh at persons who continually give in to them. 
Your people are now saying- — and this is the last 
quotation I am going to give you from the statements 
of your leaders — "Power, without any attempt at con- 
ciliation, will lead to a world conflict." But I would 
say that power with continual subservience is no 
power at all. 

But from our experience T can tell you that only 
firnmess will make it possible to withstand the assaults 
of Communist totalitarianism. Wc see many historic 
examples, and let me give you some of them. Look at 
little Finland in 1939, which by its own forces with- 
stood the attack. You, in 1948, defended Berlin only 
by your firmness of spirit, and there was no world 
conflict. In Korea in 1950 you stood up against the 
Communists, only by your firmness, and there was 
no world conflict. In 1962 you compelled the rockets 
to be removed from Cuba. Again it was only firmness^ 
and there was no world conflict. And the late Konrad 
Adenauer conducted firm negotiations with Khrush- 
chev and thus started a genuine detente with Khrush- 
chev. Khrushchev started to make concessions and if 
he hadn't been removed, that winter he was planning 

to go to Germany and to continue the genuine detente. 

Let me remind you of the weakness of a man whose 
name is rarely associated with weakness — ^the weak- 
ness of Lenin. Lenin, when he came to power, in 
panic gave up to Germany everything Germany 
wanted. Just what it wanted. Germany took as much 
as it wanted and said, "Give Armenia to Turkey." And 
Lenin said, "Fine." It's almost an unknown fact but 
Lenin petitioned the Kaiser to act as intermediary to 
persuade the Ukraine and, thus, to make possible 
a boundary between the Communist part of Russia 
and the Ukraine. It wasn't a question of seizing the 
Ukraine but rather of making a boundary with the 

We, we the dissidents of the USSR, don't have any 
tanks, we don't have any weapons, we have no orga- 
nization. We don't have anything. Our hands are 
empty. We have only a heart and what we have lived 
through in the half century of this system. And when 
we have found the firmness within ourselves to stand 
up for our rights, we have done so. It's only by firm- 
ness of spirit that we have withstood. And if T am 
standing here before you, it's not because of the kind- 
ness or the good will of communism, not thanks to 
detente, but thanks to my own firmness and your firm 
support. They knew that I would not yield one inch, 
not one hair. And when they couldn't do more they 
themselves fell back. 

This is not easy. In our conditions this was taught 


to me by the difficulties of my own life. And if you 
yourselves^any one of you — were in the same diffi- 
cult situation, you would have learned the same thing. 
Take Vladimir Bukovsky, whose name is now almost 
forgotten. Now, I don't want to mention a lot of 
names because however many I might mention there 
are more stilL And when we resolve the question with 
two or three names it is as if we forget and betray the 
others. We should rather remember figures. There 
are tens of thousands of political prisoners in our 
country and — by the calculation of English speciaUsts 
— 7,000 persons are now under compulsory psychiat- 
ric treatment. Let's take Vladimir Bukovsky as an 
example. It was proposed to him, "All right, we'll 
free you. Go to the West and shut up." And this 
young man, a youth today on the verge of death said: 
'*No, T won't go this way. I have written about the 
persons whom you have put in insane asylums. You 
release them and then I'll go West." This is what J 
mean by that firmness of spirit to stand up against 
granite and tanks. 

Finally, to evaluate everything that I have said to 
you, I would say wc need not have had our conver- 
sation on the level of business calculations. Why did' 
such and such a country act in such and such a way? 
What were they counting on? We should rather rise 
above this to the moral level and, say: ''In 1933 and 
in 1941 your leaders and the whole western world, 
in an unprincipled way, made a deal with totalitarian- 

ism." We will have to pay for this, some day this deal 
will come back to haunt us. For 30 years we have 
been paying for it and we're still paying for it. And 
we're going to pay for it in a worse way. 

One cannot think only in the low level of political 
calculations. It's necessary to think also of what is 
noble, and what is honorable — not only what is profit- 
able. Resourceful western legal scholars have now 
introduced the term 'legal realism." By legal realism, 
they want to push aside any moral evaluation of 
affairs. They say, ''Recognize realities; if such and 
such laws have been established in such and such 
countries by violence, these laws still must be recog- 
nized and respected," 

At the present lime it is widely accepted among 
lawyers that law is higher than morality — law is some- 
thing which is worked out and developed, whereas 
morality is something inchoate and amorphous. That 
isn't the case. The opposite is rather true! Morality 
is higher than law! While law is our human attempt 
to embody in rules a part of that moral sphere which 
is above us. We try to understand this morality, bring 
it down to earth and present it in a form of laws. 
Sometimes we are more successful, sometimes less. 
Sometimes you actually have a caricature of morality, 
but morahty is always higher than law. This view must 
never be abandoned. We must accept it with heart 
and soul. 

It is almost a joke now in the western world, in the 

20th century, to use words like *'good" and "evil." 
They have become almost old-fashioned concepts, but 
they are very real and genuine concepts. These are 
concepts from a sphere which is higher than us. And 
instead of getting involved in base, petty, short- 
sighted political calculations and games we have to 
recognize that the concentration of World Evil and 
the tremendous force of hatred is there and it's flow- 
ing from there throughout the world. And we have 
to stand up against it and not hasten to give to it, 
give to it, give to it, everything that it wants to swallow. 

Today there are two major processes occurring in 
the world. One is the one which ! have just described 
to you which has been in progress more than 30 years. 
It is a process of shortsighted concessions; a process 
of giving up, and giving up and giving up and hoping 
that perhaps at some point the wolf will have eaten 

The second process is one which I consider the key 
to everything and which, I will say now, will bring 
all of us our future; under the cast-iron shell of com- 
munism — for 20 years in the Soviet Union and a 
shorter time in other Communist countries — there is 
occurring a liberation of the human spirit. New gen- 
erations are growing up which are steadfast in their 
struggle with evil; which are not willing to accept 
unprincipled compromises; which prefer to lose ever^i'- 
thing— salary, conditions of existence and life itself — 
but are not willing to sacrifice conscience; not 


to make deals with evil. 

This process has now gone so far that in the Soviet 
Union today, Marxism has fallen ^o low that it has 
become an anecdote, if s simply an object of contempt. 
No serious person in our country today, not even 
university and high school students, can talk about 
Marxism without smiling, withont laughing. But this 
whole process of our liberation, which obviously will 
entail social transformations, is slower than the first 
one — the process of concessions. Over there, when we 
see these concessions, we are frightened. Why so 
quickly? Why so precipitously? Why yield several 
countries a year? 

I started by saying that you are the allies of our 
liberation movement in the Communist coantries. And 
I call upon you: let us think together and try to see 
how we can adjust the relationship between these two 
processes. Whenever you help the persons persecuted 
in the Soviet Union, you not only display magnanimity 
and nobility, you're defending not only them but 
yourselves as well. You're defending your own future. 

So let us try and see how far we can go to stop this 
senseless and immoral process of endless concessions 
to the aggressor— these clever legal arguments for why 
we should give up one country after another. Why 
must we hand over to Communist tofalitarianism more 
and more technology — complex, delicate, developed 
technology which it needs for armaments and for 
crushing its own citizens? If we can at least slow down 

that process of concessions, if not stop it all together 
— and make it possible for the process of liberation to 
continue in the Communist countries- — ultimately these 
two processes will yield us our future. 

On our crowded planet there are no longer any 
internal affairs. The Communist leaders say, "Don't 
interfere in our internal affairs. Let us strangle our 
citizens in peace and quiet." But I tell you: Interfere 
more nnd more. Interfere as much as you can. We 
beg you to come and interfere. 

Understanding my own task in the same way T have 
perhaps interferred today in your internal affairs, or 
at least touched upon them, and I apologize for it. I 
have traveled a lot around the United States and this 
has been added to my earlier understanding of it; 
what T have heard from listening to the radio, from 
talking to experienced persons. 

America — -in me and among my friends and among 
people who think the way I do over there, among all 
ordinary Soviet citizens—evokes a sort of mixture of 
feelings of admiration and of compassion. Admiration 
at the fact of your own tremendous forces which you 
perhaps don't even recognize yourselves. You*re a 
country of the future; a young country; a country of 
still untapped possibilities; a country of tremendous 
geographical distances; a country of tremendous 
breadth of spirit; a country of generosity; a country 
of magnanimity. But these quahties — strength, gen- 
erosity and magnanimity- — usually make a man and 






even a whole country trusting, and this already several 
times has done you a disservice. 

T v^^ould like to call upon America to be more care- 
ful Vv'ith its trust and prevent those wise persons who 
are attempting to establish even finer degrees of jus- 
tice and even finer legal shades of equality — some 
because of their distorted outlook, others because of 
short-sightedness and still others out of self-interest — - 
from false!y using the struggle for peace and for social 
justice to lead you down a false road. Because they 
are trying to weaken you; they are trying to disarm 
your strong and magnificent country in the face of 
this fearful threat — one which has never been seen 
before in the history of the world. Not only in the 
history of your country, but in the history of the world. 

And T call upon you: ordinary working men of 
America — as represented here by your trade union 

movement — do not let yourselves become weak. Do 
not let yourselves be taken in the wrong direction. 
Let us try to slow down the process of concessions 
and help the process of liberation! 

May I express our deep appreciation to Aleksandr 
Solzhenitsyn for his inspiring address, for the thoughts 
that he left with us at a time when, God knows, the 
world needs to think more about human freedom. The 
world needs to think more about those who are losing 
their freedom every day. 

America, in my opinion, shape up to this 
challenge as the leader of the free world, because if 
America doesn't lead the free world, the free worlds 
I'm afraid, has no leader. — George Meany 




*We Are Proud and Honored to 

Lane Kirkland 


A principle of mechanics tells us that, given a 
long-enough lever, one man can move the entire 
world. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is a living test of 
that principle. 

His lever is his pen, extended far beyond his 
reach by his mind, his talent, his courage and his 
unshakable integrity. 

He seeks to move a world that today seems 
far gone in madness and in cowardice. A world 
where terror, murder and oppression are welcomed 
and are exalted in the glass and marble temples of 
universal peace and justice that were built by a 
highly opdmistic generation after World War II. 

He stands as a living, monumental reproach to 


all of those statesmen and leaders who today raise 
the practice of abstention on basic moral issues 
to the level of high national policy and who flee 
from any test of the good will, the graces and 
the kindly disposition of the most deadly enemies 
of mankind. 

His work is not devoted to the advancement of 
any political doctrine or fashion in political dis- 
course or any passing notion of expediency— but 
to the most elemental values of hmnan dignity, 
human justice, and human freedom. 

The AFL-CIO is proud and honored to stand 
with him in that cause. I am privileged now to 
introduce Aleksandr Solzhenhsyn. 

Communism: A Legacy of Terror 

Is if then possible or impossible to transmit the ex- 
perience of those who have suffered to those who have 
yet to suffer? Can one part of humanity learn from 
the bitter experience of another or can it not? Is it 
possible or impossible to warn someone of danger? 

How many witnesses have been sent to the West 
in the last 60 years? How many waves of immigrants? 
How many millions of persons? They are all here. 
You meet them every day. You know who they arc: 
if not by their spiritual disorientation, their grief, their 
melancholy, then you can distinguish them by their 
accents by their external appearance. Coming from 
dilferent countries and without consulting with one 
another, they have brought to you exactly the same 
experience; they tell you exactly the same thing: they 
warn you of what is already happening, what has 
happened in the past. But the proud skyscrapers 
stand on, point to the sky and say: it will never 
happen here. This will never come to us. It's not 
possible here. 

It can happen. It is possible. As a Russian 
proverb says: "When it happens to you, you'll know 
it's true." 

But do we really have to wait for the moment 
when the knife is at our throats? Couldn't it be 
possible, ahead of time, soberly to assess the world- 
wide menace that threatens to swallow the whole 
world? I was swallowed myself. I have been in the 
dragon's belly, in the red burning belly of the 
dragon. He wasn't able to digest me. He threw me 
up. I have come to you as a witness to what it's 
like there, in the dragon's belly. 

It's an astonishing phenomenon that communism 
has been writing about itself in the most open way — 
in black and white — for 125 years. And even more 
openly, more candidly in the beginning. The Commu- 
nist Manifesto, for instance, which everyone knows 
by name, and which almost no one ever takes the 
trouble to read, contains even more terrible things 
than what has actually been done. It's perfectly 
amazing. The whole world can read, everyone is 
hterate, but somehow no one wants to understand. 
Humanity acts in such a way as if it didn't understand 
what communism is, and doesn't want to understand, 
is not capable of understanding. 

I think it isn't only a question of the disguises 


which communism has assumed in the last decades. 
It's rather that the essence of communism is quite 
beyond the hmits of human understanding. Tfs hard 
to believe that people could actually plan such things 
and carry them out. And precisely because its essence 
is beyond comprehension, communism is so difficult 
to understand. 

In my last address in Washington T spoke a great 
deal about the Soviet state system, how it was 
created and what it is today. But it's perhaps more 
important to discuss with you the ideology that in- 
spired the system, that created it, and that still 
governs it. It*s much more important to understand 
the essence of this ideology, and above all its legacy 
which hasn^t changed at all in 125 years, It hasn't 
changed since the day it was born. 

That Marxism is not a science is something which 
is entirely clear to intelligent people in the Soviet 
Union. It would be a joke to call it some sort of 
science. Leaving aside the exact sciences, such as 
physics, mathematics, and the natural sciences, even 
the social sciences can predict an event — when in 
what way and how the event might occur. Commu- 
nism has never made any such forecasts. It has never 
said where, when, and precisely what is ^oing to 
happen. Nothing but declamations. Declamations to 
the effect that the world proletariat will overthrow 
the world bourgeoisie and the most happy and 
radiant society will then arise. The fantasies of Marx, 


Entiels and Lenin break ofi" at this point, not one of 
them goes any further to describe what the society 
would be like. They simply said: the most radiant. 
most happy society. Everything for the sake of man. 

I wouldn't want to enumerate for you all the 

unsuccessful predictions of Marxism, but I can give 
a couple. For example, it was claimed that the condi- 
tions of the working class in the West would deterio- 
rate steadily, get more and more unbearable until 
the workers would be reduced to total poverty. (If 
only in our country we could feed and clothe our 
working class, provide it with everything and give 
it as much leisure as you doll 

Or the famous prediction Communist revolutions 
would all begin in such advanced industrial countries 
as England. France, America, Oermany^that's where 
comm'^unism will begin. (But it worked out exactly 
the other way, as you know.") Or the prediction that 
the socialist "state wouldn't even exist. As soon as 
capitalism would be overthrown, the state would at 
once wither away. (Look about you: where can 
you see states as powerful as in the so-called socialist 
or Communist countries'^) Or the prediction that 
wars are inherent only to capitalism. Wars are said 
to arise only because of capitalism; as soon as com- 
munism is introduced, all wars will come to an end. 
(We have seen enough of this also: in Budapest, in 
Prague, on the Soviet-Chinese border, in the occu- 


pation of the Baltic countries, and when Poland was 
stabbed in the back. We have seen enough of this 
already, and we will surely see more yet.) 

Communism is as crude an attempt to explain 
society and the individual as if a surgeon were to 
perform his delicate, operations with a meat-ax. All 
that is subtle in human psychology and in the struc- 
ture of society (which is even more dchcate); all of 
this is reduced to crude economic processes. This 
whole created being — ^man — is reduced to m.attcr. It's 
characteristic that communism is so devoid of argu- 
ments that it has none to advance against its oppo- 
nents in our Communist countries. It lacks arguments 
and hence there is the club, the prison, the concentra- 
tion camp, and insane asylums with forced confine- 

Mai-xism has always opposed freedom. T will quote 
just a few words from the founding fathers of 
communism, Marx and Engcis (I quote from the 
first Soviet edition of 1929): "Reforms are a sign 
of weakness" (vol. 23, p. 339); "Democracy is 
more to be feared than monarchy and aristocracy," 
(voL 2, p. 369); "Pohtical liberty is a false liberty, 
worse than the most abject slavery" (vol. 2, p. 394). 
In their correspondence Marx and Engels frequently 
said that after achieving power, terror would be 
indispensable, that "it will be necessary to repeat the 
year 1793. After achieving power, we'll be con- 



sidered monsters, but we couldn't care less" (vol. 25, 

p. 187). 

Communism has never concealed the fact that it 
rejects all absolute concepts of morality. It scoffs 
at any consideration of "good'' and "evil" as indis- 
putable categories. Communism considers morality to 
be relative, to be a class matter. Depending upon 
circumstances and the political situation, any act, 
including murder, even the killing of thousands, could 
be good or could be bad. It all depends upon class 
ideology. And who defuics class ideology? The whole 
class cannot gel together to pass judgment. A iiandful 
of people determine what is good and what is bad. 
But 1 must say that in this very respect communism 
has been most successful. Tt has infected the whole 
world with the belief in the relativity of good and 
evil. Many people besides the Conmiunists arc carried 
away by this idea today. Among enlightened people 
it is considered rather awkward to use seriously such 
words as "good'' and "evil." Communism has man- 
aged to instill in all of us that these concepts are 
old-fashioned concepts and laughable. But if we are 
to be deprived of the concepts of good and evil what 
will be left? Nothing but the manipulation of one 
another. We will decline to the status of animals. 

Both the theory and practice of communism are 
completely inhuman for that reason. There is a 
word very commonly used these days: "anti-commu- 
nism." It's a very stupid word, badly put together. 

Tt makes it appear as though communism were 
something original, something basic, something funda- 
mental. Therefore, it is taken as the point of de- 
parture, and anti-communism is defined in relation 
to communism. Here is why 1 say that this word 
was poorly selected, that it was put together by peo- 
ple who do not understand etymology: the primary, 
the eternal concept is humanity. And communism is 
anti-humanity. Whoever says ''antl-communism'' is 
saying, in effect, antt-anti-humanity. A poor construc- 
tion. So we should say: that which is against commu- 
nism is for humanity. Not to accept, to reject this 
inhuman Communist ideology is simply to be a human 
being. It isn't being a member of a party. Tt's a protest 
of our souls against those who tell us to forget the 
concepts of good and evil. 

But what is amazing is that apart from all their 
books, communism has offered a multitude of ex- 
amples for modern man to see. The tanks have 
rumbled through Budapest. It is nothing. The tanks 
roar into Czechoslovakia. Tt is nothing. No one else 
would have been forgiven, but communism can be 
excused. With some kind of strange deliberation, as 
though God wanted to punish them by taking away 
thcir^-eason, the Communists erected the Berlin wall. 
Tl IS indeed a monstrous symbol that demonstrates 
the true meaning of communism. For 14 years people 
have been machine gunned there, and not only those 
who wanted to leave the happy Communist society. 


Recently some foreign boy from the western side 
fell into the Spree River. Some people wanted to 
pull iiim out, but the East German border guards 
opened fire. "No, no, don^t save him." And so he 
drowned; this innocent boy. 

Has the Berlin wall convinced anyone? No again. 
It's being ignored. It's there, but it doesn't affect us. 
We'll never have a wall like that. And the tanks in 
Budapest and Prague, they won't come here either. 
On all the borders of the Communist countries, the 
European ones in any case, you can find electronic 
killing devices. These are automatic devices for killing 
anyone who goes across. But people here say: "That 
doesn't threaten us cither, we are not afraid of that." 
In the Communist countries they have a developed 
system of forced treatment in insane asylums. That's 
nothing. We're living quietly. Three times a day- 
right at this very moment— the doctors are making 
their rounds and injecting substances into peoples^ 
arms that destroy their brains. Pay no attention to it. 
Well continue to live in peace and quiet here. 

There's a certain woman here named Angela Davis. 
I don't know if you are familiar with her in this 
country, but in our country, literally for one whole 
year, we heard of nothing at all except about Angela 
Davis. There was only Angela Davis in the whole 
world and she was suffering. We had our ears stuffed 
with Angela Davis. Little children in school were 


fold to sign petitions in defense of Angela Davis. 
Little boys and girls, S and 9 years old in schools, 
were asked to do this. Well., they set her free. 
Although she didn't have a rough time in this coun- 
try, she came to recuperate in Soviet resorts. Some 
Soviet dissidents — but more important, a group of 
Czech dissidents— addressed an appeal to her: ''Com- 
rade Davis, you were in prison. You know how 
unpleasant it is to sit in prison, especially when you 
consider yourself innocent. You now have such 
authority. ^ Could you help our Czech prisoners? 
Could you stand up for those persons in Czechoslo- 
vakia who are being persecuted by the state?" Angela 
Davis answered: "They deserve what they get. Let 
them remain in prison.^' That is the face of commu- 
nism. Thafs the hcai't of communism for you. 

I would particularly want to remind you today 
that communism develops in a straight line and as 
a single entity, without altering as people now like 
to say. Lenin did indeed develop Marxism, but pri- 
marily along the lines of ideological intolerance. If 
you read Lenin, you will be astonished at how much 
hatred there w^as in him at the least deviation, when- 
ever some view differed from his by so much as a 
hair's breadth. Lenin also developed Marxism in 
the direction of inhumanity. Before the October 
Revolution in Russia, Lenin wrote a book called 
"The Lessons of the Paris Commune.^' There he 
analyzed why the Paris Commune was defeated in 

1871. And his principal conclusion was thai the 
Commune had not shot, had not killed enough of 
its enemies. It had destroyed too few people, when 
it was necessary to kill entire classes and groups. 
And when he came to power, Lenin did jusi this. 

And then the word Stalinism was thoughl up. 
It's a term which "became very popular. Even in the 
West they often say now; "K only the Soviet Umon 
doesn^t return to StaUnism/' But there never was any 
such thing as Stalinism. This was contrived by 
Khrushche^v and his group in order to shift onto 
Stalin all of the characteristics and all the prnicipal 
defects of communism. It was a very effective move. 
But in reality Lenin had managed to give shape to all 
the main aspects before Stalin ever came on the 
scene. It was Lenin who deceived the peasants about 
their land. He is the one who deceived the workers 
about self-management. He is the one who turned 
the trade unions into organs of oppression. He is 
the one who created the Cheka, the secret police. 
He is the one who created the concentration camps. 
It is he who sent troops out to the border areas to 
crush any national movements for liberation and to 
f^et up an empire. 

The only new thing that Stalin did was based on 
mistrust. Where it would have been enough — in order 
to instill general fear^lo jail two people, he would 
arrest a hundred. And those who followed Stalm 


have merely returned to the previous tactic: if it is 
necessary to send two off to jail, then send two, not 
a hundred. In the eyes of the party, StaUn's entire 
guilt lay elsewhere; he did not trust his own Commu- 
nist Party. Due to this alone the concept of Stalinism 
was devised. But Stalin had never deviated from the 
same basic line. They used to sculpt a has relief of 
Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin all together; to this 
one could add Mao Tse-tung, Kim II Sung. Ho Ciii 
Minh; they are all in the same line of development. 

The following theory is also accepted in the West. 
It is said that China is a sort of purified, puritanical 
type of communism, one which hasn't been trans- 
formed for the worse. But China is simply a delayed 
phase of that so-called "war communism" established 
by Lenin in Russia, but which was in force only 
until 192L Lenin established it not because the mili- 
tary situation required it, but because this is how 
they envisioned the future of their society. But when 
economic pressure required them to retreat, they in- 
troduced the so-called New Economic Policy and 
they retreated. In China this initial phase has simply 
lasted longer. China is characterized by all the sanie 
traits: massive compulsory labor which is not paid 
in accordance with its value; work on holidays; forced 
living in communes and the incessant drumming in 
of slogans and dogmas that abolish the human essence 
and deny all individuality to man. 

What's worst in the world Communist system is 


its unity, its cohesion. Enrico Belinguer quite recently 
said that the sun had set on the Comintern. Not at 
all. It hasn't set. Its energy has been transformed 
into electricity which is now pulsing through under- 
ground cables. The sun of the Comintern today 
spreads its energy everywhere in the form of high- 
voltage electricity. Quite recently there was an inci- 
dent when western Communists indignantly denied 
that Portugal was operating on instructions from 
Moscow. Of course, Moscow also denied this. And 
then it was discovered that those very orders had 
been openly published in the Soviet magazine "Prob- 
lems of Peace and Socialism." These were the very 
instructions that Ponomarev had given. AH the 
seeming differences among the Communist parties of 
the world are imaginary. All are united on one point: 
your social order must be destroyed. Why should 
we be surprised if the world doesn't understand this? 
Even the socialists, who are the closest to communism, 
don't understand this themselves. They cannot gi'asp 
the true nature of communism. Recently, the leader 
of the Swedish socialists, Olaf Palme, said that the 
only way that communism can survive is by taking 
the' path of democracy. That is the same thing as 
saying that the only way in which a wolf can survive 
would be to slop eating meat and become a lamb. 
And yet Palme lives right next door. Sweden is quite 
close to the Soviet Union. I think that he, and 
Mitterand, and the Italian socialists will live to the 

<iay when they will be in the position that (Portiigars 
Mario) Soares is in today, 

Soares' situation today, by the way, is not yet at its 
worst. An even more terrible future awaits him and 
his party. Only the Russian socialists — the Menshe- 
viks and the Socialist Revolutionaries — could have 
told them of the fate that awaits them. But they can- 
not tell of it; they are all dead; they've all been killed. 
Read the Gulag Archipelago for that. 

Of course in the present situation the Communists 
have to assume various disguises. Sometimes wc hear 
words like the "popular front/' at other times 
"dialogue with Christianity" is brought up. For Com- 
munists to have a dialogue with Christianity! Tn the 
Soviet Union this dialogue was a simple matter: they 
used machine guns and revolvers. And today, in 
Portugal, unarmed Catholics are stoned by the Com- 
munists. This happens today. This is dialogue. . . 
And when the French and the Italian Communists 
say that they arc going to have a dialogue, let them 
only achieve power and we shall see what this 
dialogue will look like. 

When I traveled to Italy this past April, T was 
amazed lo see hammers and sickles painted on the 
doors of churches, insults to priests scrawled on the 
doors of their houses. Tn general, offensive Communist 
graffiti cover the walls of Italian cities. This is today, 
at a time before they have achieved power. This is 

today . . . When their leaders were in Moscow, 
Palmiro Togliatti agreed to all of Stahn's executions. 
Just let them reach power in Italy and we shall see 
what the dialogue will look hke then. 

All of the Communist parties, upon achieving 
power, have become completely merciless. But at the 
stage before they achieve power, it's necessary to 
adopt disguises. 

We Russians who have had experience with this, 
find it tragic to see what is going on in Portugal. We 
were always told, "WeH, this happened to you Rus- 
sians. Ifs just that you couldn't maintain democracy 
in your country. You had it for eight months and 
then it was throttled. That's eastern Europe for you." 
But look at Portugal, at the very western-most edge 
of Europe, you can't go further West than Portugal. 
And what do we see there? We see a sort of carica- 
ture, a slightly altered version of what happened in 
Russia. For us it sounds like a repetition. We recog- 
nize what's going on and can make the proper sub- 
sdtutions, placing our sociahst in Scares' position. 

Or another familiar note: in Russia the Bolsheviks 
also pursued power under the slogan "All Power to 
the Constituent Assembly.'' But when the elections 
took place, they got 25 percent of the voic So they 
dispersed the Constituent Assembly. The Communists 
in Portugal got 12 percent of the vote. So they made 
their parliament entirely powerless. What irony: the 

socialists have won the elections. Scares is the leader 
of the victorious party. And he has been deprived of 
his own newspaper. Jast imagine: the leader of a 
victorious party has been stripped of his own news- 
paper! And the fact that there an assembly has been 
elected and that it will sit in session has no signifi- 
cance whatever. Yet the western press writes seriously 
that the first free elections took place in Portugal. 
Lord save ns from such free elections! 

Specific instances of duplicity, of trickery, can of 
course change from one set of circumstances to an- 
other. But we recognize the Communist character m 
the episode when the Portuguese military leaders, 
who are allegedly not Communists, decided to settle 
the dispute withm the newspaper "Republica" m the 
following manner. "Come at 12 oVlock tomorrow/' 
they said, ''we'll open the doors for you and you 
settle it ail as you sec fit." But they opened the doors 
at 10 o'clock and for some reason only the Commu- 
nists knew of this, but not the socialists. The Com- 
munists entered, burned all the incriminating docu- 
ments and then the socialists arrived. Ah, yes, it was 
of course only an error. An accident, they didn't 
check the time ... 

These are the sort of tricks^and there are thou- 
sands—which make up the history of our revolution. 
There will be many more such incidents in Portugal. 
Or take the following example: the current military 
leadership of Portugal, in order not to lose the assis- 

tance of the West (they have already ruined Portugal 
there is nothing to eat, so they need help), have 
declared. "Yes, we shall keep our multi-party sys- 
tem." And the unfortunate Soarcs, the leader of the 
victorious party, now has to demonstrate that he is 
pleased with this declaration in favor of a multi-party 
system. But on the same day the same source declared 
that the construction of a classless society will begin 
immediately. Anyone who is the least bit familiar 
with Marxism knows that "classless society'' implies 
that there won't be any parties. That is to say, on the 
very same day they said: there will be a multi-party 
system and wc shall strangle every party. But the 
former is heard while the latter is inaudible. And 
everybody repeats only that there will be a multi-party 
system. This is a typical Communist technique. 
' Portugal has. in effect, fallen out of NATO today. 
T hate to be a prophet of doom but these events are 
irreversible. Very shortly Portugal will already be 
considered a member of the Warsaw Pact. It is painful 
to look at this tragic and ironic repetition of Commu- 
nist techniques at^ the far ends of Europe, 60 years 
apart. In the same few months we see the throttling 
of a democracy which had only just begun to get on 

its feet. 

The question of war is also well elucidated ui 
Communist and Marxist literature. Let me show you 
how communism regards the question of war, I quote 
Lenin: "We cannot support the slogan 'Peace' since 


we regard it as a totally muddled one and a hindrance 
to the revolutionary struggle." (Letter to Alexandra 
Kollontai, July 1915) 'To reject war in principle is 
un-Marxist. Who objectively stands to gain from the 
slogan 'Peace'? In any case not the revolutionary 
proletariat." (Letter to Alexander G. Shliapnikov, 
November 1914). "There^s no point in proposing a 
benign program of pious wishes for peace without at 
the same time placing at the forefront the call for 
illegal organization and the summons to Civil War.'' 
This is communism's view of war. War is necessary. 
War is an instrument for achieving a goal. 

But unfortunately for communism, this policy ran 
up against your atomic bomb in 1945. The American 
atomic bomb. Then the Communists changed their 
tactics. Then they suddenly became advocates of 
peace at any cost. They started to convoke peace 
congresses, to circulate petitions for peace, and the 
western world fell for this deceit. But the goal, the 
ideology, remained the same. To destroy your society. 
To destroy the way of life known in the West. 

But with your nuclear superiority, it wasn't possible 
to do this then. Hence they replaced one concept with 
another. They said: what is not war is peace. That is 
to say, they opposed war to peace. But this was a 
mistake. Only a part of the antithesis opposed to the 
thesis. Although an open war could not be conducted, 
they could still carry out their oppressions behind the 


scene — terrorism. Partisan war, violence, prisons, 
concentration camps. I ask you: is this peace? 

The diametric opposite of peace is violence. And 
those who want peace in the world should remove 
not only war from the world, but also violence. If 
there is no open war, but there is still violence, that 
is not peace. 

As long as in the Soviet Union, in China, and in 
other Communist countries there's no limit to the use 
of violence — and now we find India joining in (it 
appears that Indira Ghandi has learned a lot from 
her trip to Moscow; she has mastered these methods 
very well, and is now adding another 400 million 
persons to this continent of tyranny )^as long as 
there is no limit to this use of violence, as long as 
nothing restrains the use of violence over this tre- 
mendous land mass (more than half of humanity), 
how can you consider yourselves secure? 

America and Europe together are not yet, 1 agree, 
an island in the ocean— I won^t go so far as to say 
that. But America together with Europe is now a 
minority, and the process is still continuing. Until 
society In those Communist countries can keep a 
check on the government and can have an opinion 
on what the government does — now it doesn't even 
have the least idea of what the government is up 

to until that time comes the West, and the world 

generally, has no guarantee at all. 

"We have another proverb in Russia: "Catch on 
you will when you're tumbhng downhill." 

T understand that you love freedom, but in our 
crowded world you have to pay a tax for freedom. 
You cannot love freedom just for yourself and quietly 
agree to a situation where the majority of humanity 
over the greater part of the globe is being subjected 
to violence and oppression. 

The Communist ideology is to destroy your society. 
This has been their aim for 125 years and has never 
changed; only the methods have changed a little. 
When there is detente, peaceful co-existence, and 
trade, they will still insist; the ideological war must 
.continue! And what is ideological war? It is a focus 
of hatred, this is continued repetition of the oath to 
destroy the western world. Just as, once upon a time 
in the Roman Senate, a famous speaker ended every 
speech with the statement: "Furthermore, Carthage 
must be destroyed," so today, with every act — detente, 
trade, or whatever— the Communist press, acting on 
secret instructions, sends out thousands of speakers 
who repeat: "Furthermore, capitahsm must be de- 

I understand, it's only human that persons living 
in prosperity have difficulty understanding the neces- 
sity of taking steps — here and now, in a state of 
prosperity— to defend themselves. That even in pros- 
perity one must be on guard. 

But if I were to enumerate all the treaties that have 

been violated by the Soviet Union, it would take me 
another whole speech. I understand that when your 
statesmen sign some treaty with the Soviet Union or 
China you want to believe that it will be carried out. 
But the Poles who signed a treaty in Riga in 1921 
with the Communists also wanted to believe that the 
treaty would be carried out, and they were stabbed 
in the back. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who signed 
treaties of friendship with the Soviet Union, also 
wanted to believe that they would be carried out, but 
these countries were all swallowed. 

And the persons who sign these treaties with you 
now^these very men and no others — at the same 
time give orders for persons to be confined in mental 
hospitals and prisons. Why should they be different? 
Do they have any love for you? Why should they act 
honorably and nobly toward you while they crush 
their own people? The advocates of detente have 
never yet explained this. 

You want to believe and you cut down on your 
armies. You cut down on your research. There used 
to be an Institute for the Study of the Soviet Union— 
at least there was one. (You know nothing about the 
Soviet Union. It's dark over there. These searchlights 
don't penetrate that far.) Knowing nothing, you elim- 
inated the last genuine institute which actually could 
study this Soviet society, because there wasn't enough 
money to support it. But the Soviet Union is studying 


you Yo^. are all wide open here, through the pre s 
Ind' Congress. And they study you even more n- 
reasing the size of their staffs^ They folloNv what s 
3ng on in your institutions. They vis.t the bu.khngs 
then' they ean; they even visit congressional corn- 

mittees; they study everything. ,„,-„rtive to 

Of course, peace treaties are veiy att actne to 
tho° X sign them. They strengthen one's prestige 
whh the electorate. But the time will come when the 
n me of these public figures will be erased from 
S-sToTv Nobodv will remember them any longer but 
t westei-n peoples will have to pay heavily for these 

°T? oS f^^ of showing that detente is 
ne ded today, here and now^ No We have Ih-e - 
cians who look very far into the future Tl e diiecto, 
ofth Russian Institute of Columbia University., 
Ma shall Shulman, at a meeting of the Senate Foreign 
ReTatSns Conrmittee, depicted a radiant long-range 
fu i", stating that detente would uUimately lead to 
coope ation between the United States and the USSR 
ni establishment of a world order. But wha^^so t 
of new order, in cooperation with '"^^^'^'ble to a - 
Srianism. does this professor want to see establ.shed^ 
Tt won't be vour order in any case. 

Su^the principal argument of the advocates o 
detente is weh^known: all of this must be done to 
aS a uelear war. But after all that has happened 
Trecent years, T think T can set their mmds at case, 


,nd vour minds at ease as well: there will not be 
' V nuclear war. W^at for? Why should there be a 
nude™ war if for the last 30 years they have been 
leaking off as much of the West as they wanted- 
Ice after piece, country after country and the pro- 
cs keep going on. In 1975 alone four eountnes 
ve e bro'ei^off-'Four-three in Indochina p us India, 
the process keeps going on, and very rapidly, too^ 
One should be aware of how rapid the tempo is Bu 
Su assume that ultimately the --tern wor d w. 
understand and say, "No, not one step furthei . What 


You have theoreticians who say: The IIS^ nmst 

stop the process of nuclear armament. We bave 

no'ugh ahLdy. Today America has -on J^..--^- 

weapons to destroy ^'-f ^^^^ J- ,f *y™;'^;,S 
should we need more than that? Let the Ame.ica 
nuclear specialists reason this way if they want, bu 
?or some reason the nuclear specialists of the Sovie 
Uniou-^andfor some reason the leaderso the Sov^ 
Union-think d>fTerently. Ask your ^P--'' ^^^ 1! 
-mide their superiority in tanks and airplanes 
^^e e he surpass you by a factor of four, five or 
seven ake the SALT talks alone: m these negotia- 
ion" your opponent is -^tmually dece.vmg you^ 
Erther he is testing rM..ria^yw.<^s^2^ 

Z ; : dES^ -^nel °or hf is violatmg the 

limitations on their destructive force; or else he is 
violating the conditions on multiple warheads. 

As the proverb says, ''Look before you leap, or you 
will have bruises to keep." 

At one time there was no comparison between the 
strength of the USSR and yours. Then It became 
equal to yours. Now, as all recognize, it is becoming 
superior to yours. Perhaps today the ratio is just 
greater than equal, but soon it will be 2 to 1. Then 
3 to 1. Finally it will be 5 to 1. I'm not a specialist 
in this area, and you're not specialists either, I sup- 
pose, but this can hardly be accidental. I think that 
if the armaments they had before were enough, they 
would not have driven things further. There must be 
some reason for it. With such a nuclear superiority 
it will be possible to block the use of your weapons, 
and on some unlucky morning they will declare: 
"Attention. We're marching our troops to Europe, 
and if you make a move, we will annihilate you." 
And this ratio of 3 to 1, or 5 to 1 will have its effect: 
you will not make a move. Indeed, theoreticians will 
be found to say, 'Tf only we can have that blessed 
silence . . ." 

To make a comparison with chess, this is like two 
players who are sitting at a chess board, one of whom 
has a tremendously high opinion of himself and a 
rather low opinion of his opponent. He thinks that 
he willj of course, outplay his opponent. He thinks 

he is so clever, so calculating, so inventive, that he 

will certainly win. He sits there, he calculates his 

moves. With these two knights he will make four 

forks. He can hardly wait for his opponent to move. 

He's squirming on his chair out of happiness. He 

takes off his glasses, wipes them, and puts them back 

on again. He doesn't even admit the possibility that 

his opponent may be more clever. He doesn't even 

see that his pawns are being taken one after the other 

and that his castle is lander threat. It all seems to hnn, 

''Aha, thaf s what we'll do. We'll set Moscow, Peking, 

Pyongyang, Hanoi one against the other," 

But what a jokeS No one will do any such thing! 
In the meantime, you've been outplayed in West 
Berlin, you've been very skillfully outplayed m Por- 
tugal. Tn the Near East you're being outplayed. One 
shouldn't have such a low opinion of one's opponent. 
But even if this chess player were able to win the 
game on the board, carried away by the play, he 
forgets to raise his eyes; he forgets to look at his 
opponent and doesn't see that he has the eyes of a 
killer. And if the opponent cannot win the game on 
the board, he will take a club from behind his back 
and shatter the skull of the other chess player, wm- 
ning the game in that way. This very calculating 
chess player also forgets to raise his eyes to the 
barometer. It has fallen. He doesn't see that it's 
already dark outside, thai the clouds are coming on, 


that a hurricane is rising. That's what it means to be 
too self-confident in chess. 

In addition to the grave political situation in the 
world today, we are witnessing the emergence of a 
wholly new situation, a crisis of unknown nature, one 
completely different, one entirely non-pohtical We're 
approaching a major turning point in world history, 
in the history of civiUzation. It can be seen in various 
areas by various specialists. I could compare it only 
with the turnine point from the Middle Ages to the 
modern era, a whole shift of civilizations. It is a 
turning point at which settled concepts suddenly 
become hazy, lose their precise contours, at which 
our familiar and commonly used words lose their 
meaning, become empty shells, at which methods 
which have been reliable for many centuries no 
longer work. It's the sort of turning point at which 
the hierarchy of values to which we are dedicated all 
our lives, which we use to judge what is valuable 
and what is not, and which causes our hves and our 
hearts to beat, is starting to waver and may perhaps 

collapse. . . c J ' 

And these two crises: the political crisis of today s 
world and the oncoming spiritual crisis, are occurring 
at the same time. It is our generation that will have 
to confront them. The leadership of your country 
which is entering the third century of your national 
existence, will perhaps have to bear a burden greater 
than ever before seen in the whole of American his- 

tory. Your leaders during this time (which is so near) 
will need profound intuition, spiritual foresight, high 
qualities of mind and soul. May God grant that in 
those times you will have at the heJm in this country 
personalities as great as those who created your 

In recent weeks, when traveling through various of 
your states, I of course felt that these two cities in 
which 1 have made my addresses — Washington and 
New York — arc far from reflecting your country as 
a whole, with its tremendous diversity and all of its 
possibilities. Just as old St, Petersburg did not express 
the whole of Russia, just as Moscow does not reflect 
the Soviet Union of today, and just as Paris more 
than once abused its claim to represent all of France. 

I was profoundly impressed by my contact with 
those places which are, and have always been, the 
wellsprings of your history, ft really makes one think: 
the men who created your country never lost sight of 
their moral bearings. They did not laugh at the abso- 
lute nature of the concepts of ''good" and "evil." 
Their practical policies were checked against that 
mora] compass. And how surprising it is that a prac- 
tical policy computed on the basis of moral considera- 
tions turned out to be the most far-sighted and the 
most salutary. Even though in the very short term 
one wonders: why all this morality? Let's just get on 
with the immediate [ob. 

The leaders who created your country never said: 

"Let slavery reign right next door, and we will enter 
into detente with this slavery, so long as it doesn't 
come over to us," 

I have traveled enough through the different states 
of your country and in its various regions to have 
become convinced that the American heartland is 
healthy, strong and broad in its outlook, I am con- 
vinced that these healthy, generous and inexhaustible 
forces will help you to elevate the whole style of 
your government leadership. 

Yet, when one travels in your country and sees 
your free and independent life, all the dangers which 
I talked about today indeed seem imaginary. I've 
come and talked to people, and T see this is so. In 
your wide open spaces even I get a Uttle infected. The 
dangers seem a Uttle imaginar}^ On this continent it 
is hard to believe all the things which are happening 
in the world. But, gentlemen, this carefree life cannot 
continue in your country or in ours. The fates of 
our two countries are going to be extremely difficult, 
and it is better to prepare for this beforehand. 

I understand, I sense that you're tired. You're 
fatigued, but you have not yet really suffered the 
terrible trials of the 20th century which have rained 
down on the old continent. YouYe tired, but not as 
tired as we are, lying crushed to the ground for 60 
years. You're tired, but the Communists who want 
to destroy your system aren't tired; they're not tired 
at all. 

I understand that this is the most unfavorable time 
to come to this country and to make this sort of 
address. But if It were a favorable time, if it were 
an appropriate time, there wouldn't be any need for 
me to speak. 

Precisely because this is the worst possible time I 
have come to tell you about our experience over 
there. If our experience in the East could flow over 
to you by itself, it wouldn't be necessary for me to 
assume the unpleasant and inappropriate role of 
orator. I am a writer, and T would prefer to sit and 
write books. 

But a concentration of world evil, of hatred for 
humanity is taking place and it is fully determined 
to destroy your society. Must you wait until it comes 
with a crowbar to break through your borders, unti! 
the young men of America have to fall defending the 
borders of their continent? 

After my first address, as always, there were some 
superficial comments in the newspapers which did 
not really get to the essence. One of them was as 
follows: that T came here with an appeal to the 
United States to liberate us from communism. Anyone 
who has at all followed \yhat I have said and written 
these many years, first in the Soviet Union and now 
in the West, will know that TVc always said the exact 
opposite. T have appealed to my own countrymen — 
those whose courage has failed at difficult moments, 
and who have looked imploringly to the West — and 

Bfged them: "Don't wait for assistance, and don't ask 
for it: we must stand on our own feet. The West has 
enough troubles without us. Tf they support us, many 
thanks. But to ask for it, to appeal for it — never." 

I said the last time that two processes are occurring 
in the world today. One is a process of spiritual 
liberation in the USSR and in the other Communist 
countries. The second is the assistance being extended 
by the West to the Communist rulers, a process of 
concessions, of detente, of yielding whole countries. 
And I only said: "Remember, we have to pull our- 
selves up — ^but if you defend us you also defend your 
own future." 

We are slaves there from birth. We are born slaves. 
Vm not young anymore, and T myself was born a 
slave; this is even more true for those who are young- 
er. We are slaves, but we are striving for freedom. 
You, however, were born free. If so, then why do 
you help our slave owners? 

In my last address I only requested one thing and 
I make the same request now: when they bury us in 
the ground alive — I compared the forthcoming Euro- 
pean agreement with a mass grave for all the coun- 
tries of East Europe — as you know, this is a very 
unpleasant sensation: your mouth gets filled with 
earth while you're still alive- — please do not send 
them shovels. Please do not send them the most 
modern earth-moving equipment. 

By a peculiar coincidence the very day when I was 
giving my address in Washington, Mikhail Suslov was 
talking with your senators in the Kremlin. And he 
said, "In fact, the significance of our trade is more 
political than economic. We can get along without 
your trade.'' That's a lie. The whole existence of our 
slave owners from beginning to end relies on western 
economic assistance. As 1 said the last time, begin- 
ning with the first spare parts used to reconstruct our 
factories in the 1920s, from the construction in Mag- 
nitostroy, Dneprostroy, the automobile and tractor 
factories built during the first five-year plans, on into 
the postwar years and to this day, what they need 
from you is economically absolutely indispcnsable^ — 
not politically, but economically indispensable — -to the 
Soviet system. The Soviet economy has an extremely 
low level of efficiency. What is done here by a few 
people, by a few machines, in our country takes 
tremendous crowds of workers and enormous masses 
of materials. Therefore the Soviet economy cannot 
deal with every problem at once: war, space (which 
is part of the war effort), heavy industry, fight indus- 
try, and at the same time the necessity to feed and 
clothe its own population. The forces of the entire 
Soviet economy are concentrated on war, where you 
won't be helping them. But everything which is lack- 
ing, everything which is needed to fill the gaps, every- 
thing which is necessary to feed the people, or for 
other tvpes of industry, they get from vou. So indi- 


rectly you are helping them to rearm. You're helping 
the Soviet police state. 

To get an idea how clumsy the Soviet economy is, 
I'll give you the following example: What kind of 
country is it, what kind of great power, which has 
tremendous military potential, which conquers outer 
space, but has nothing to sell? All heavy equipment, 
all complex and delicate technology, is purchased 
abroad. Then it must be an agricultural country? Not 
at all; it also has to buy grain. What then can we sell? 
What kind of economy is it? Can we sell anything 
which has been created by sociahsm? No! Only that 
which God put in the Russian ground at the very 
beginning, thafs what we squander and that's what 
we sell. What we got from God in the first place. 
And when all this will come to an end, there won't 
be anything left to sell. 

The president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, 
has quite rightly said that it is not loans which the 
United States gives to the Soviet Union, it is economic 
assistance- It's foreign aid. It's given at a level of 
interest that is lower than what American wwkers 
can get for their home mortgages. That is direct aid. 
But this is not all. I said in my last address and 
would like to repeat it again, that we have to look at 
every event from the other point of view — from the 
point of view of the Soviet Union. Our country is 
taking your assistance, but in the schools they're 


teaching and in the newspapers they are writing and 
in lectures they are saying, "Look at the western 
world, it's beginning to rot. Look at the economy of 
the western world, it's coming to an end. The great 
predictions of Marx, Engek and Lenin are coming 
true. Capitalism is breathing its last. Ifs already dead^ 
And our sociahst economy is flourishing. Tt has dem- 
onstrated once and for a]I the triumph of commu- 
nism." I think, gentlemen, and T particularly address 
those of you who have a sociahst outlook, that we 
should at last permit this sociahst economy to prove 
its superiority. Let's allow it to show that it is ad- 
vanced, that it is omnipotent, that it has defeated 
you, that it has overtaken you. Let us not interfere 
with it. Let us stop selling to it and giving it loans. 
Tf it's all that powerful, then let it stand on its own 
feet for 10 or 15 years. Then we wiH see what it 
looks like. T can tell you what it will look like. T am 
being quite serious now. When the Soviet economv 
will no longer be able to deal with everything, it will 
have to reduce its military preparations. Tt will have 
to abandon the useless space effort and it will have 
to feed and clothe its own people. And the system 
will be forced (o relax. 

Thus, all I ask you is that as long as this Soviet 
economy is so proud, so flourishing, and yours is so 
rotten and so moribund — stop helping it then. Where 
has a cripple ever helped along an athlete? 

Another distortion appeared in your press with 

respect to my last address. Someone wrote that "one 
more advocate of the Cold War has come here. One 
more person has arrived to call on us to resume the 
Cold War." That is a misunderstanding. The Cold 
War — the war of hatred — is still going on, but only 
on the Communist side. What is the Cold War? It's 
a war of abuse and they still abuse you. They trade 
with you, they sign agreements and treaties, but they 
still abuse you, they still curse you. In sources which 
you can read, and even more in those which are 
unavailable to you, and which you don't hear of, in 
the depths of the Soviet Union, the Cold War has 
never stopped. Tt hasn't stopped for one second. They 
never call you anything but "American imperialists." 
One day, if they want, all the Soviet newspapers could 
say that America wants to subjugate the world and 
our people would have nowhere to get any other 
information. Do I call upon you to return to the 
Cold War? By no means. Lord forbid! What for? 
The only thing Vm asking you to do is to give the 
Soviet economy a chance to develop. Do not bury 
us in the ground, just let the Soviet economy develop, 
and then let's see. 

But can the free and varied western system follow 
this policy? Can all the western countries together 
say: "It's true, let us stop competing. Let us stop 
playing up to them. Let us stop elbowing each other 
and clamoring, 'Me. me, let me have a concession, 
please give it to me' . . r It's very possible that this 



could not be done. And if this sort of unity cannot 
be achieved in the West, if, in the frenzied competi- 
tion of one company with another they will continue 
to rush in loans and advanced technology, if they 
will present earth-moving equipment to our grave- 
diggers, then Fm afraid that Lenin will turn out to 
have been right. He had said: ^The bourgeoisie will 
sell us rope, and then we shall let the bourgeoisie 
hang itself." 

In ancient times trade would begin with the meeting 
of two persons who had come out of a forest or had 
arrived by sea. They would show one another that 
they didn't have a stone or club in their hand, that 
they were unarmed. And as a sign of this each ex- 
tended an open hand. This was the beginning of the 
hand clasp. Today's word "detente" hterally means 
a reduction in the tension of a taut rope. (What an 
ominous coincidence: A rope again!) 

So 'Metente" means a relaxation of tension. But T 
would say that what we need is rather this image of 

the open hand. Relations between the Soviet Union 
and the United States of America should be such that 
there would be no deceit in the question of arma- 
ments, that there would be no concentration camps, 
no psychiatric wards for healthy people. Relations 
should be such that the throats of our women would 
no longer be constricted with tears, that there would 
be an end to the incessant ideological warfare w^aged 
against you, and that an address such as mine today 
would in no way be an exception. 

People would simply be able to come to you from 
the Soviet Union, from China, and from other Com- 
munist countries and would be able to talk freely, 
without any tutoring from the KGB, without any 
special approval from the Central Committee of the 
Party. Rather, they would simply come of their own 
accord and would tell you the truth about what is 
going on in these countries. 

This would be, I say, a period in which we would 
be able to present "open hands" to each other. 

A O 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 

Alek&andr Isayevich Sofiihenitsyn left Russia on 
Feb. 12, 1974, when he was arrested, stripped of 
his Soviet citizensiiip and exiled with his wife and 
children. He sctded in Zurich and visited the U.S. 
for the first time in mid- 1975. 

His exile started four years after he was awarded 
the Nobel Prize for literature, which the Soviet gov- 
ernment denied him permission to accept in person. 

Born Dec. 11, 1918, Solzhenitsyn was raised by 
his mother after his father was killed in World War 
r. He studied science at Rostov University — but his 
literary bent showed even then in a correspondence 
course he took front 1939 to 1941 from Moscow's 
Institute of History, Philosophy, and Literature. 

When World War 11 broke out, he became first 
a wagon train driver and then commander, rising 
to the rank of captain. Highly decorated, he re- 
mained in that position until February 1945, when 
he was arrested for ''disrespectful remarks" about 
Stalin in a letter he wrote, 

Solzhenitsyn spent the next eight years in several 
Siberiaii labor camps. Tn one such canip in Kaza- 
khstan, he developed cancer. Upon completion of 
his eight-year sentence, he was exiled to southern 
Kazakhstan, where he spent three years teaching 
mathematics and physics, and writing secretly. But 

by the end of ]953. on the verge of death from 
cancer, he was allowed to go to Tashkent for treat- 

On April 18, 1956, Solzhenitsyn was released 
from prison, ''rehabilitated/' and returned to his 
profession as a physics teacher. He continued writ- 
ing secretlv. describing his experience in the prison 
camps. Then, in 1962 he was permitted to publish 
his first book, "One Day in the Life of Ivan Deniso- 

His book "For the Good of the Cause" was 
excerpted in Soviet literar}.^ journals, but it and his 
earlier work came under attack as the Khrushchev 
"thaw" ended and he was expelled by the Soviet 
Writers Union, He v/as free to teach physics, but 
he did not exist as a writer. 

But he continued to write. His later works — 
"Cancer Ward."" 'Tirst Circle," "August 1914,'^ 
^'Candle in the Wind." "We Never Make Mis- 
takes" and "The Gulag Archipelago" — were pub- 
lished and widely acclaimed abroad, while seen in 
Russia only in typescript form. 

Although he was denied permission to accept 
the Nobel Prize in person when it was awarded to 
him in October 1970, his acceptance text was re- 
leased by the Nobel Foundation in August 1972. 



815 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006 



PjbUcation Wo. T52